- The climate is rapidly changing- It's almost certain it is because of our industrial activity (CO2, and CFCs)- We are still IN a minor ice age. Having ice caps at both poles between ice ages may be unique in the planet's history

One of a few things could happen:- The antarctic ice sheet might break off. This would raise the ocean levels globally by about 20 feet. That would be very bad. It would also cause evaporation levels to increase, changing the weather patterns. That would be very bad.OR- Warming may cause more precipitation. Increased percipitation in colder places, means more snow. Which will last. That will reflect the sun more. Causing a cooling effect. This could actually bring on the onset of the next ice age.OR- The long term carbon cycle may be so severely disrupted, that the whole system will overbalance. The last time this happened, it took a mere 10 thousand years to fix itself.OR- Yellowstone may explode and wipe out most of the life on the planet. Then we won't be here anymore to care anyway. That happens on average, every 65 thousand years. The last time it happened, was a little over 65 thousand years ago.

not collecting stamps:And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

I see, so it's perfectly acceptable to fark up the planet so it results in the deaths of billions of people? Not that I think that's what's going to happen, but you just explicitly stated that that scenario is fine with you. That may have been a troll but a lot of people say this in reality. The old "we can't destroy the planet, we may die but the world will live on..." Well that's super, but I don't know about you but I want my kids and grandkids to have somewhere to live, and not in Mad Max ways. It's a stupid argument, so everyone needs to stop using it.

We could probably put every nuclear device around where detonating them all at once would cause the most damage. That might kill billions, is that ok just because the world will survive, and life will slowly recover? I don't think so.

HighZoolander:Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle. There is no definitive proof. I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

CruJones:HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle. There is no definitive proof. I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

While I believe in evolution, you can't deny that species living and dying are possibly a natural cycle. There's no definitive proof. I mean species have lived and died many times.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

You are the one who seems to be confusing weather with climate. Scientists can, in fact, go to certain areas and infer the average temperature over about a years time. Naturally they can't tell you the temp on 7/1/921, because that's weather, which is a very turbulent model.

smoking causing lung cancerclimate change,...There is no definitive proof. I mean people who never smoked in their lives get lung cancer too so something else must cause itthe earth has warmed and cooled many times.

Modified it slightly to reflect the last line of bullshiat the 'no definitive proof' machine was paid to spread around to better illustrate the opinion of those of us who held the 'huh, wonder if this will hold up as they collect data' position about 10 years and thousands of studies ago.

CruJones:HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle. There is no definitive proof. I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

There is no other known mechanism which accounts for the changes we are experiencing. Previous climate changes have mechanisms and occur over times scales that do. There is little doubt among professionals that the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the cause. Anyone who could account for these changes in some other way would be rich and famous beyond the dreams of any scientist alive.

jst3p:thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

Many people are dying in lots of parts of the world due to starvation already. Not to sound too cold hearted but are you talking about the acceleration of that process or dying of something else?

Many people in lots of parts of the world have been starving for the last couple hundred thousand years. To think that... people making bad decisions... can be fixed is stupid.

IlGreven:You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

nmrsnr:IlGreven: You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.

nmrsnr:IlGreven: You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

Every time anyone has ever argued that point, they've used the "were you there?" argument. Ken Ham has made that a central point of his creationism teaching...forgetting that he himself wasn't there when Jesus lived, and neither was anyone who wrote a book in the Bible. It's a dishonest argument that presumes that only the time during which we're alive is relevant...except with climate change, when everything outside the past 200 years is relevant...except when scientists can explain what happened with climate for everything up to the past 200 years, then they're just in on the conspiracy.

My point? Don't use a historically anti-science argument if you're not arguing for the anti-science side. Thank you.

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

Mikey1969:It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

And keep in mind that the warming you're talking about taking 12,000 years is going to be more than matched in 150 by CH4 and CO2. Orders of magnitude matter, not just "is there change?"

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.And so what?

Adapt or die.Move away from the oceans.Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Bendal:Mikey1969: It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.

I could only wish for 50% humidity here in NC. We've had rain, heavy rain, for almost a week now each and every day, and the humidity level is well over 70%, over 90% in the early mornings. You go outside and it's like being hit in the face with a warm, damp washcloth, the air is so moist and sticky.

Corvus:WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.And so what?

Adapt or die.Move away from the oceans.Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.It's the only way!

Really?So now you admit it's happening but your answer is "fark everyone!"

Wow.

Who is asking to "send your money to suits"?

You will be spending more money on trying battle the effects of climate change in the future then if we do something now, so you are the one one wanting to "send your money to suits" not me.

odinsposse:genner: The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

Nope. The only reason people distrust the scientific method is because morons don't like it when someone points out the facts show they are wrong. A scientist who could clearly show global warming wasn't happening would be an instant celebrity and get tons of money from the business interests that already invest money in denier campaigns.

They don't have to clearly show anything. Just show up with a degree and go on Fox News and tell people what they want to hear.........oh look that's whats happening already. Now the other side has to prove they aren't doing the same thing or loose to public opinion.

May 2nd I got 16 inches of snow (normally does not snow more than 1-2" all month) 10 days later it was 97 but on average it has been a cooler wetter year than last year. The year before that was middle of the road but wetter, and the year before that was warmer and wetter. 2 Billion years ago the surface was lava.

The moral of the story is statistics can be massaged to create any outcome you want.

Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.

The interior of Antarctica is considered the world's driest desert because the extreme cold freezes water vapour out of the air. Annual snowfall on the polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Antarctica_a_desert

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Your graph is the derivative of the effect--degrees additional warming per additional 20ppm CO2--so that you can show it going down. If the graph were showing the warming effect as a function of CO2 concentration, it would continue to slope up to the right, just not as steeply as at the beginning.

Also, why a bar graph? A simple line would be so much easier on the eye, and is the "honest" way to display something that is supposed to be a function of the variable on the X axis.

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

A- Can you tell me what that chart even isB - what is the source of that chart.C - what measurements are they using?

According to your chart it looks like temperatures have stayed which everyone admits is bullshiat.

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones? Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"